Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Samuel Zamudio Jimenez - California Death Row

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    Samuel Zamudio Jimenez - California Death Row


    Samuel Zamudio


    Facts of the Crime:

    Sentenced to death in Los Angeles County on October 5, 1998 for robbing and murdering Elmer and Gladys Benson, an elderly couple, on February 11, 1996.

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534
    August 31, 2010

    S.C. Rejects Brown’s Effort to Throw Out Death Penalty Petitions

    Lack of Qualified Habeas Corpus Counsel Requires Delay, Justices Rule


    The California Supreme Court yesterday rejected Attorney General Jerry Brown’s effort to speed up the death penalty review process by throwing out the petitions of Death Row inmates whose sentences have been affirmed but who do not have habeas corpus counsel.

    In a pair of companion cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its previously informal practice of allowing inmates to file cursory or “shell” petitions in order to satisfy timeliness requirements, then allowing subsequently appointed counsel time to file amended petitions.

    One of yesterday’s cases involved Edward Patrick Morgan, convicted in Orange Superior Court in 1996 of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering Leona Wong. Appellate counsel was appointed in 2000, and the sentence affirmed in 2007, but habeas corpus counsel has not been appointed because “we still have not found qualified counsel willing to accept the appointment,” Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote.

    Morgan’s petition, filed with the assistance of the California Appellate Project—which did not and does not represent him—was filed in April 2008; it raised only a claim of ineffective assistance, contained no supporting exhibits, and asked the court to allow Morgan “to amend this petition within 36 months after the appointment of habeas corpus counsel to include additional claims as determined by habeas corpus counsel” and to defer briefing.

    The defendant in the other case, Samuel Zamudio Jimenez, was sentenced to death in 1998 for two counts of murder with special circumstances of robbery-murder and multiple murder. Appellate counsel was appointed in 2002 and the sentence affirmed in 2008.

    The Habeas Corpus Resource Center was appointed as habeas corpus counsel in 2007 and filed a single-claim petition, similar to the CAP petition filed by Morgan, along with a motion to allow the petitioner three years to file an amended petition raising additional claims.

    The Attorney General’s Office opposed Morgan’s and Jimenez’s efforts to delay the time in which to file complete, legally and factually supported petitions. It noted that such delays may potentially toll the time in which to file federal habeas corpus petitions, thus dragging out the capital review process into one that can last for decades, and urged the high court to summarily deny the cursory petitions as lacking in merit.

    Kennard, however, said indigent, non-legally trained. inmates should not be required to bear the consequences of delays in appointing qualified habeas corpus counsel.

    Those delays, the justice explained, occur because the number of Death Row inmates has grown to more than 670 and about 300 of them lack habeas counsel, the HCRC is limited by law as to the number of attorneys it can hire and the available fiscal resources, and the number of attorneys who have the combination of trial and appellate skills to handle capital habeas cases is quite limited, Kennard wrote.

    “The Attorney General argues that federal habeas corpus proceedings are ‘costly, disruptive, and counter-effective to the enforcement of state law’ and that therefore this court should not defer consideration of the petition now before us. But whether federal habeas corpus proceedings are, as the Attorney General contends, detrimental to the enforcement of state law is not at issue here. At issue is whether this court should defer consideration of petitioner’s incomplete habeas petition (filed without the assistance of appointed counsel) to avoid potential prejudice to his right to seek federal habeas corpus relief in the federal courts.”

    As long as the source of the potential prejudice was this court’s lengthy but unavoidable delay in recruiting qualified counsel,” the justice said, requests such as Morgan’s and Zamudio Jimenez’s are reasonable, the justice concluded.

    Kennard was joined by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justices Ming Chin, Carlos Moreno, and Kathryn M. Werdegar.

    Justice Carol Corrigan, joined by Justice Marvin Baxter, concurred in the results of both cases, solely on the ground that the petitioners had relied on past practice.

    Corrigan argued that the court should no longer accept shell petitions, a practice that “eliminates any urgency to secure counsel” and “burdens this court and adds greatly to the long delays in death penalty proceedings.”

    The court, she said, needs to improve its procedures for securing qualified habeas counsel but does not need “help one class of convicted inmates evade a federal statute of limitations.“

    The cases are In re Morgan, 10 S.O.S. 5076, and In re Zamudio Jimenez, 10 S.O.S. 5083.

    http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/morg083110.htm

  3. #3
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Jimenez's habeas case has been fully briefed before the California Supreme Court since November 1, 2012.

    http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...doc_no=S167100

  4. #4
    Senior Member CnCP Legend JLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,740
    On March 21, 2018, Jimenez's case was remanded to the trial court on an Atkins claim.

    http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...pTMCAgCg%3D%3D

  5. #5
    Wilso
    Guest
    March 4, 2020

    California: Qualified Attorney Work-Product Protection Applies to Discovery During Habeas Proceedings

    By Douglas Ankney
    Prison Legal News

    In October 2, 2019, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled that the qualified attorney work-product protection doctrine applies in habeas corpus proceedings. In 1997, a jury convicted Samuel Zamudio Jimenez of two counts of murder and sentenced him to death.

    Jiminez filed a habeas petition in 2010, alleging juror misconduct among other claims. Attached to his petition was a declaration from alternate juror E.P., who stated that she sat with the jurors during deliberations, that jurors asked her opinion and that she told them she agreed that Jimenez was guilty.

    The California Supreme Court ordered the state to show cause in the superior court why relief should not be granted on the juror misconduct claim.

    At a subsequent hearing on Jimenez’s habeas petition, the superior court agreed to the district attorney’s request that letters be sent to the remaining jurors to ask if they were willing to speak with the parties’ counsel. The parties agreed that if any juror spoke to one party, that party would provide the juror’s statement to the other party.

    The district attorney also requested that Jimenez be required to disclose any statements from jurors or alternates previously obtained. Jimenez objected, arguing, among other things, that the qualified attorney work-product protection doctrine shielded those statements from disclosure. The superior court disagreed and ordered Jimenez to provide all statements his counsel had obtained from the alternate jurors concerning whether they had participated in jury deliberations. Jimenez filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking relief from the superior court’s discovery order.

    In deciding the petition for writ of mandate, the Court of Appeal observed that court-ordered discovery is generally unavailable in habeas corpus proceedings “unless and until a court issues an order to show cause.” But once an order to show cause has been entered, courts have discretion to order discovery as to issues on which the petition has stated a prima facie case.

    Because habeas corpus is analogous to neither civil nor criminal proceedings, the nature and scope of discovery following an order to show cause is resolved on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the statutes governing discovery in criminal trials and those governing discovery in civil cases do not apply to habeas proceedings, although those statutes can be used for guidance. The Court opined that the qualified attorney work-product protection doctrine provided absolute protection to any “writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories,” citing Code of Civil Procedure § 2018.030.

    The work-product doctrine reflects the policy of the state to preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with a degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only favorable but unfavorable aspects of those cases. It also prevents attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary’s industry and efforts. In Coito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (Cal. 2012), the California Supreme Court held that “a witness statement obtained through an attorney-directed interview is, as a matter of law, entitled to at least qualified work product protection.”

    However, in Izazaga v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 356 (Cal. 1991), the state Supreme Court had limited the application of the work-product protection in criminal cases to writings that reflect an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories. But equally true in criminal cases, discovery is limited to disclosing witness statements of only those witnesses the attorney intends to call.

    In the instant case, Jimenez did not yet know if he intended to call any of the jurors as witnesses. And as in a civil case, permitting discovery of the fruits of habeas counsel’s investigation would discourage counsel from investigating unfavorable aspects of the case and memorializing adverse information, diminishing counsel’s duty to investigate matters thoroughly.

    The Court of Appeal concluded that the juror’s statements to Jimenez’s counsel were shielded from disclosure by qualified attorney work-product protection and that the superior court had abused its discretion in ordering discovery at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court ordered the peremptory writ of mandate to issue, directing the superior court to vacate its order granting the district attorney’s motion for discovery and to enter a new order denying that motion without prejudice to its renewal. See: Jimenez v. Superior Court, 40 Cal. App. 5th 824 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2019).

    https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news...s-proceedings/

  6. #6
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Judge rejects DA Gascón’s agreement to vacate killer’s death sentence

    'Prosecutor and defense are colluding to subvert justice' through stipulated resentencing agreements, says a victims rights attorney

    By Scott Schwebke
    Los Angeles Daily News

    A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has refused to rubber stamp an agreement between a controversial prosecutor and defense attorneys to remove a man from death row for a 1996 double murder in South Gate.

    In a sign that the bench is beginning to push back against some of District Attorney George Gascón’s sweeping social justice policies, Judge Roger Ito last week in a Norwalk court rejected Deputy District Attorney Shelan Joseph’s stipulation to defense claims that 57-year-old Samuel Zamudio is intellectually disabled, exempting him from the death penalty.

    Joseph, an ally of Gascon hired from the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, has requested that Zamudio be resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

    Judge to question psychologist

    Instead, Ito has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for March 18, 2022, so he can question a psychologist who evaluated Zamudio, who was sentenced to death in 1997 for the fatal stabbings of 79-year-old Elmer Benson, and his wife, Gladys, 74, during a robbery at their South Gate home.

    “He (Ito) said that this is the first time as a bench officer that he has not accepted a proposed stipulation between the parties,” said Kathleen Cady, an attorney who represents the Bensons’ children, Jane Bouffard and Tom Vardon. “The judge said that he wants to ensure that the process is transparent for the people, the defendant, the victims and the public.”

    The District Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Zamudio’s case is pending before the court due to a habeas corpus petition, which is typically used to determine if an inmate’s detention is lawful.

    Attorneys with the San Francisco-based Habeas Corpus Resource Center representing Zamudio have indicated they intend to file a motion to disqualify Ito, Cady added. Officials with the center declined to comment.

    Joseph said in the stipulation filed with the court on Nov. 30 that Zamudio’s intellectual disability diagnosis is supported by 35 exhibits, including mental health, education and jail records along with declarations from doctors and psychologists.

    “The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office believes that Mr. Zamudio has established that he is intellectually disabled,” the stipulation says. “Respondent will not support executing a person who is intellectually disabled.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has placed a moratorium on executions in California, which has not put an inmate to death since 2006.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

    Collusion between Gascón, AG?

    Bouffard and Vardon believe Joseph is attempting to concede the defense’s intellectual disability claim because of Gascón’s opposition to the death penalty and not due to the law or facts of the case, Cady said.

    “They have a right to expect that DA Gascón follow the law as enacted by the legislators and the voters, and not undertake to change a sentence based on his own personal philosophy and policy,” she said. “Based on what has occurred, it appears that the prosecutor and defense are colluding to subvert justice because of Gascón’s policy against the death penalty.”

    Aside from Cady’s criticism, Gascón also faces a second recall effort, which the Prosecutors Alliance of California believes is destined to fail.

    “Recall proponents stand for more punishment, not more safety,” Cristine DeBerry, founder and executive director of the alliance, said in a statement. “Dated, tough-on-crime approaches have not made our communities safer, but have produced insecurity and instability that has increased recidivism rates and exacerbated homelessness in our communities.

    “Fully 95 percent of the people we send to prison will come home, and research has consistently shown that longer sentences can actually make individuals more likely to commit future crimes,” DeBarry said. “It’s time to stop the finger pointing and work with us on prevention and problem solving.”

    Elsewhere, Gascón’s staff members are revolting against what they describe as his soft-on-crime approach to reimagining justice in Los Angeles County.

    A high-ranking prosecutor, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, alleges Gascon and California Attorney General Rob Bonta are working in tandem as part of an apparent legal strategy that already has overturned the death penalty sentences of at least four Los Angeles County convicted killers.

    On Nov. 5, Bonta filed notices of withdrawal in Los Angeles County Superior Court and deferred to the District Attorney’s Office habeas corpus petitions from the condemned inmates challenging their death sentences, records show.

    In each instance, the District Attorney’s Office then told the court it conceded the inmates’ claims and asked the judge to vacate their death sentences. As a result, each inmate was resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

    The Attorney General’s Office has recently filed at least 20 other withdrawal notices, prompting Gascón’s critics to fear that more convicted killers will soon also have their death sentences vacated.

    “When Proposition 66 passed in 2016, returning petitions challenging death penalty convictions to local trial courts, some district attorneys requested that the California Department of Justice work with them to handle these cases,” a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office said in a statement.

    “At the request of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, we have agreed to end that temporary arrangement. The locally elected district attorney will assume sole responsibility for state court habeas death penalty cases currently pending before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. We are accordingly respecting that request.”

    Gascón is the only district attorney in California to request responsibility for capital cases, according to the Attorney General’s Office.

    The prosecutor-turned whistleblower also criticized Gascón for taking more than 50 capital cases that consist of “complex procedural histories” from a half-dozen experienced prosecutors and reassigning them to Joseph.

    “These are the most serious and egregious cases in the criminal justice system,” the prosecutor said. “The California Supreme Court and federal courts have reviewed and upheld the conviction and sentence. Yet, despite all of this, the district attorney has decided to ignore the jury’s findings and the judiciary’s decision.

    “To ensure a predetermined outcome based upon his ideology, he placed these cases in the hands of a career public defender, who is not only a longtime advocate against the death penalty, but is willing to take a dive to undermine the case. The victims and the public are left without an advocate.”

    https://www.dailynews.com/2021/12/07...eath-sentence/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •